Packers Prospect Visit Thread

[Arthur Penske]

3 hours ago, R T said:

Past tendencies change based on what current coaches want for their individual schemes. They currently have 2 OT's on the roster taller than Guyton. 

 

1 hour ago, sgtcheezwiz said:

Where were they picked?

 

22 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

Very fair point.  The farther away you get from the first round, the more you can deviate from your "standard".

I'll add this, though...much of that height thing is based on perceived lack of movement skills from such a large athlete.

Guyton can move...like REALLY move.  There is an amazing athlete there.  If the standard is to look at the athlete first, then look at height/weight as part of the standard, he easily passes the test.

The dude's 10 yard split is 1.76.  

When he is our pick, I'll be disappointed because it will be yet another year when we don't see our first round pick play much.  But with how we develop offensive linemen, that guy has the God given ability to be dominating.

Exactly on the further from the first round the further they deviate. Never say never, but an OT taller than 6"6' in the first would be surprising and break precedent. 

[sgtcheezwiz]

13 minutes ago, Arthur Penske said:

 

 

Exactly on the further from the first round the further they deviate. Never say never, but an OT taller than 6"6' in the first would be surprising and break precedent. 

100% 

 

it’s not impossible, but I sure as **** wouldn’t bet on it. 

[vegas492]

30 minutes ago, Arthur Penske said:

 

 

Exactly on the further from the first round the further they deviate. Never say never, but an OT taller than 6"6' in the first would be surprising and break precedent. 

 

16 minutes ago, sgtcheezwiz said:

100% 

 

it’s not impossible, but I sure as **** wouldn’t bet on it. 

I wouldn't bet on it either, however, the man moves like a tight end at 6'8''.  

We assume that there is a height threshold.  But if the threshold looks at movement skills first, then height?  Guyton is going to pass that test with flying colors.

As a general rule, I agree.  But Guyton is not your typical 6'8'' NFL athlete.

[sgtcheezwiz]

18 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

 

I wouldn't bet on it either, however, the man moves like a tight end at 6'8''.  

We assume that there is a height threshold.  But if the threshold looks at movement skills first, then height?  Guyton is going to pass that test with flying colors.

As a general rule, I agree.  But Guyton is not your typical 6'8'' NFL athlete.

I can definitely see them looking at athletics first then size - but it always seems like they prefer to go under size as opposed to ‘over’. Feel like we would have seen it happen by now. We did see them sign Jared Veldheer so I guess that’s one thing.
 

If it was going to happen, I think it would happen with Patrick Paul where it’s less of a gamble and maybe there is more value there and where they are more likely to deviate from the norm.

 

But I’d start getting familiar with Rosengarten, Puni, Foster, Wallace, just to name a few. Those guys fit more closely to what we’ve historically gone with.

Edited April 2 by sgtcheezwiz

[ReasonablySober]

Past tendencies only apply until they don't anymore. 

I think it's honestly really silly that people who have no insight into the mind of the Packers various decision makers can make hard determinations regarding attribute thresholds. All it takes is one draft pick to blow these preconceived notions out of the water. 

[Packerraymond]

33 minutes ago, ReasonablySober said:

Past tendencies only apply until they don't anymore. 

I think it's honestly really silly that people who have no insight into the mind of the Packers various decision makers can make hard determinations regarding attribute thresholds. All it takes is one draft pick to blow these preconceived notions out of the water. 

Sure, all it means is that it's not impossible for us to take Guyton, but it is unlikely, and way more likely we take Barton, Fautanu, Morgan, etc.... Ignoring trends and data is foolish. 

[ReasonablySober]

6 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Sure, all it means is that it's not impossible for us to take Guyton, but it is unlikely, and way more likely we take Barton, Fautanu, Morgan, etc.... Ignoring trends and data is foolish. 

We're not really talking about trends, though. The sample size is incredibly limited when talking about first round picks. Just a handful, really. All it takes is one pick ("Gute doesn't take older players in the first round" [Gute takes Wyatt] "Welp!") and the trend can be thrown out the window.

[Packerraymond]

3 minutes ago, ReasonablySober said:

We're not really talking about trends, though. The sample size is incredibly limited when talking about first round picks. Just a handful, really. All it takes is one pick ("Gute doesn't take older players in the first round" [Gute takes Wyatt] "Welp!") and the trend can be thrown out the window.

We can use Thompson's data as well, that was the mentorship for our current scouting team. 

[packfanfb]

18 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Sure, all it means is that it's not impossible for us to take Guyton, but it is unlikely, and way more likely we take Barton, Fautanu, Morgan, etc.... Ignoring trends and data is foolish. 

I keep thinking Morgan is the guy being overlooked here. If the Packers go OL at 25 and it's not Barton, I'd put Morgan at the No. 2 most likely. He screams Packer in just about every respect and the Packers might like him enough at 25. 

[ReasonablySober]

11 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

We can use Thompson's data as well, that was the mentorship for our current scouting team. 

I suppose Ron Wolf too, since Thompson worked as a Director of Player and Pro personnel under Wolf for eight years?

Edited April 2 by ReasonablySober

[ReasonablySober]

Al Davis too, I guess. He was the long time mentor to Ron. 

[Packerraymond]

2 minutes ago, ReasonablySober said:

I suppose Ron Wolf too, since Thompson worked as a Director of Player and Pro personnel under Wolf for eight years?

Lol, your argument is so weird. We have data, lets use it, pretty simple. 

[ReasonablySober]

1 minute ago, Packerraymond said:

Lol, your argument is so weird. We have data, lets use it, pretty simple. 

The data isn't based on a large enough sample. Assumptions based on the data have already proven to be wrong.

The only thing we can gather from the data is there's a 100% chance Gute will pick either an offensive or a defensive player, or trade that pick. I'm comfortable saying that.

[Packerraymond]

9 minutes ago, ReasonablySober said:

The data isn't based on a large enough sample. Assumptions based on the data have already proven to be wrong.

The only thing we can gather from the data is there's a 100% chance Gute will pick either an offensive or a defensive player, or trade that pick. I'm comfortable saying that.

There will never be enough data to prove anything with 100% certainty when it comes to the draft. Eventually the Packers will take a round 1 WR and break the streak. Eventually they'll take a 6'8 OT early in the draft. However, until it happens we can still say it's unlikely and highlight more likely options for us to draft. 

[craig]

Seeing patterns and trends is fine, but Sober is right that every year it seems we're breaking one or coming close, sooner or later.  Don't draft 1st-round old guys, but Wyatt.  Don't draft 1st-round LB, but Quay.  Don't draft shorties, but Amari.  Don't draft little guys, but Reed.  Wasn't Jaire fringy short?  Zach Tom is a shorty outlier on a roster where all of the other tackles are 6'9"-6'6".  

I like that Gute is pretty flexibly case-by-case, and is willing to bend for particular players.  Whether Guyton is that guy, beats me.  

Certainly it's easier to flex the less you're investing.  So sure, going super-tall on UDFA maybe isn't the same as early-round.  And flexing for a Guyton at 41 or 58 is different than at 25.